Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
are serious speakers who dealt with the agency's new said we should always treat national security with proper skepticism. the only story which any member of parliament directly referred to, the dep internet if anybody is interested. >> the second question is sanderson, the river to are announced this whole issue of information in the u. k, i will summarize what he said is the free press to hold the government to account, and the guardians played investigations, joining that, is it in this issue? and any author for this information? >> i think we just had a long and tortured debate about medicine and during that debate we heard repeated answers for all three party leaders that politicians would not interfere in the press and it seems to me the very first hurdle, parliament is in danger, and the transit of journalists. and we didn't want this in the public been. and intelligence agencies, once it is in the hands of the press, the press must be protected and the wonderful thing about america is a lesson we are still learning in this country. >> my question is in relation to the part that your ne
house, with the director of national intelligence, with he fbi, with the nsa, with the national security council, and with the pentagon. this country it's included downing street, the cabinet security e national advisor, gchq themselves, and dinas committee. we've consulted more than 100 times with the agencies in order be aware of their concerns before we published them. so i suppose my question is, have you gone through all of 53,000 documents? and have some been excluded from publication? will they not be appearing. have others been put in the yes, publication? >> i think -- in terms of ublishing documents, i think we've published 26. >> i'm referring to the ones yet been. not >> we did a few more pages of ocuments that have been redacted. publishnot expect us to a huge amount of more. 26 over six months. the ones that have been communicated to the united states. because i understand some of hose, the names have been redacted and some of them haven't. how did you go about deciding names to redact and which not -- the guardian ear, has not used any names. in the rare occasion where we'
, with the director of national intelligence, with the fbi, with the nsa, with the national security council, and with the pentagon. this country it's included downing street, the cabinet office, the national security advisor, gchq themselves, and the dinas committee. we've consulted more than 100 times with the agencies in order to be aware of their concerns before we published them. >> and so i suppose my question is, have you gone through all of the 53,000 documents? and have some been excluded from publication? will they not be appearing. have others been put in the yes, okay for publication? >> i think -- in terms of publishing documents, i think we've published 26. >> i'm referring to the ones which have not yet been. >> we did a few more pages of documents that have been redacted. i would not expect us to publish a huge amount of more. 26 over six months. >> what about the ones that have been communicated to the united states. because i understand some of those, the names have been redacted and some of them haven't. how did you go about deciding which names to redact and which not --
, who had dealt with the agencies, who say we should always treat the claims of national security with proper. the only story which is a member of parliament has directly referred to was the so-called deacon net, which i'm happy to talk about if anyone's interested. >> thank you. second question is stay in anniston, the u.s. repertoire and counterterrorism just announced will be looking into this whole issue of intelligent and information given by the u.s. and the u.k. -underscore december said. they hold the government to account and some on suggestions from the tories and the investigation on the tabloid newspapers joining not. are you welcoming the u.n. investigation into this issue about the whole issue about getting an offer of information to the extent that? >> absolutely. we just had a long debate about levin said. during that debate, we heard repeated assurances from all party theaters that the competitions for not interfering the press. and i seems to me a very close hurdle parliament is in danger of farming. as i say, i put earlier that the general counsel of the nsa, so
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4